The WSJ Disappoints

The WSJ has a profound case of multiple personality disorder. After associate editor John Bussey was seen on FOX criticizing Trump’s debate performance for continuing to repeat false narratives, the weekend print edition echoed his comments with a headline proclaiming, “Falsehoods Mark Trump’s Debate Night.” The article, a fact-check piece right out of the democrat playbook, went through five major issues and slammed Trump for “false or misleading statements.”  Really, misleading statements from a politician? The horror. For example, when Trump said “every legal scholar” wanted Roe v Wade overturned, nobody thought he meant EVERY legal scholar. However, a significant number of constitutional scholars did, and to suggest otherwise is nitpicking. Further, no one argues that some miscreants were involved in the January 6 debacle. Still, to suggest that everyone who took a stroll through the capitol that day had “overrun” police looks preposterous when watching video of the event; a good percentage of the “mob” appeared to be elderly tourists.  No guns, no weapons, and the only “death,” an unarmed female protester. Hmm. A rather anemic insurrection in a nation purportedly overcome with gun violence.  Regarding immigration, the repose to Trump's assertion that migrants are dependent on public benefits was to state that “in the long term,” immigrants tend to pay taxes without tapping public benefits. Splitting hairs again. How about in the short term?  And how much and how long does the public have to subsidize them before they are self supporting? The article’s claims are even more ethereal than Trump’s statements. Specifics, please. And references as well. Trump may have exaggerated by pointing to Social Security as a source of assistance. Still, the fact remains that illegal immigration is a financial burden to the American taxpayer, regardless of where the funds come from. On the economy, Trump asserted that Biden has “the largest deficit in the history of our country.”  The Wall Street countered that Trump ran up a deficit of 14.7% of GDP, but “mostly as a result of emergency pandemic relief.”  What’s Biden’s excuse for unchecked spending?  Although Biden and the moderators didn’t dispute Trump's assertion that inflation was under control on his watch, the Journal nitpicks and states that inflation was “starting to pick up toward the end of (his) presidency.”  Maybe so, but we will never know if it would have continued to increase or if Trump could have brought it under control had he remained in office. Speculation at best, but it does not qualify as falsehood. What we do know is that prices ballooned under the Biden Administration’s policies after the pandemic crisis had waned. Lastly, they attacked Trump on his claim that Putin “never would have invaded Ukraine” under his watch. Maybe. Maybe not. But hardly a “falsehood.”  Stating that Putin’s invasion was “long in the works” is hardly evidence that a Trump administration wouldn’t have been a deterrent. They also criticize Trump for claiming that European nations were spending less on Ukraine than the US, stating that the EU spent $110 billion, and after adding in non-EU member states, the total came to $190 billion, more than the US contribution of $175 billion. But to hurl the falsehood cudgel at this is again splitting hairs. Technically, the US did indeed outspend the EU $175B to $110B to fund a war that is not even on our doorstep. So, Trump technically is correct in his assertion to the tune of $65 billion. And nowhere in this article is there any criticism of Biden's policies, only negative assertions to bolster the left’s incessant claims that Trump is a liar, a narrative featured in Jill Biden’s extraordinarily abrasive and embarrassing stand-in speech for her cadaveric husband post-debate. And in the most head-turning example of publication schizophrenia, only six pages later appeared an editorial by Peggy Noonan, a Reagan conservative who has taken to the Journal’s pages with nothing short of a constant stream of abuse directed at Trump, praising his debate performance as measured and composed while lambasting Biden as having done irreparable harm to his reelection efforts in the worst debate performance in history.  Wow. Who are you?  Now granted, the Trump Falsehood article was written by a gang of six and reflected the associate editor Bussey’s opinion either by direction or happenstance, but Ms. Noonan, having been so critical and personally repulsed by Mr. Trump, was a real shocker, female, and college-educated to boot. The Wall Street Journal, long a standard bearer for conservatives, appears to be struggling in this presidential election cycle. They’re giving me whiplash.